State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)

Citation: State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Parent Document: State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2014-05-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2673207/state-v-hemingway/ ↗

Full Text

1,971 chars

¶ 17.        
A good example of such a dispute is seen in the recent decision in State
v. Blaise, 2012 VT 2, 191 Vt. 564, 38 A.3d 1167 (mem.), which dealt with
oral instructions given by a probation officer pursuant to a probation
condition requiring compliance with any such instructions.  We acknowledge
that the statute does not require such instructions by a probation officer to
be in writing, but the confusion in Blaise caused by insufficient
written instructions demonstrates the type of dispute that this Court would
regularly find itself policing if we did not require statutory written notice
of probation conditions.  The probation officer in that case purported to
enter into a written contract with the probationer with respect to the most
important probation conditions, but the terms of the contract were sparse,
incomplete and vague.  Thus, the trial court relied upon the testimony of
the two probation officers who worked on defendant’s case, whose memories of
their oral instructions to the probationer were also incomplete and
vague.  In a split decision, a majority of this Court found that the
evidence, either the writing or the testimony, did not support the State’s
claim of the probation conditions that defendant was alleged to have
violated.  The majority concluded, with respect to the main condition at
issue, that it did not require that defendant attend a particular treatment
program that he had chosen voluntarily to attend but stated only that
attendance at that program met the applicable probation condition.  Id.
¶ 20.  The dissent responded: “It is not a finer point of the Geneva
Convention we are interpreting, but an everyday probation condition.  Its
terms and requirements were plain enough to the defendant, the officer, and the
court.”  Id. ¶ 35 (Burgess, J., dissenting).  The lesson
of the confusion and the ultimately divided decision in Blaise is that
we need clear, explicit terms in writing.

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text